Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
to congress. january 1, 2013, new tax rates and rolls kick in. january 2, 2013, $110 billion in fiscal cliff spending cuts due to begin. march 27, 2013, funding of the federal government expires. august 1, 2013, white house's suggested deadline for resolving major changes to the tax code and entitlements. ron has this to say about the fiscal cliff -- let's hear from ray in philadelphia, a republican caller. caller: good morning. i think the republicans have to get out a better message. if we realize we ran out of money for all the programs we are having, what is going to happen in another 10 years? what happens is, these people earning more than $250,000, they worked from the age of 18 to move up the ladder and finally reached success. the pint the republicans have to make is it is time to lower taxes on middle-class families. it has reached a pinnacle. it is time to may be lower taxes on the middle-class. we have to cut spending because the economy is in such bad positicondition. democrats keep pointing out that 98% of businesses are less than $250,000. 98% of people working in those busine
a fiscal cliff. at that rate, talks are going slow. the u.s. seems poised to go over the edge. wendell goler live at the white house. okay, does everyone have like the calendar in front of them realizing what the date actually is? >> it's a high stakes poker game. each side waiting for the other to show its cards. the white house demanding republicans say how much they're willing to raise taxes and republicans demanding the white house list the spending cuts. democrats are willing to accept. there is, as you say, less than month before the deadline and realistically, there may be less time than that given the need for congress to actually write legislation. house speaker john boehner said on fox news sunday, right now they've got nothing to start with. >> i would say we're nowhere, period. we're nowhere. we've put a serious offer on the table by putting revenues up there to try to get this question resolved. but the white house has responded with virtually nothing. they've actually asked for more revenue than they've been asking for the whole entire time. >> the president campaigned on
, go down the fiscal cliff for tax rates, and adjust the taxes for the 98% through the rebate process. and this could be available for anyone, any president. let the bush tax rates apply as a ceiling, and then apply the rebate process to control the 98%. host: why do you propose that? what is the advantage in your view? caller: because the executive branch, the president, whoever it is, would have the ability to adjust the tax effectively for anyone who falls below the clintons' ceiling, and they could do this anytime. there would not have to go back to congress. -- they would not have to go back to congress. guest: it is true that technically the administration can do some things without even the congress's approval, but it would not be a lasting solution. let's say you could freeze the amount of withholding that you pay three paycheck at the level it was this year, for the 98%, and increase withholdings for everyone else as the law would dictate if you read over the cliff. -- went over the cliff. but the 98%, if they did not actually pass a law to extend the tax cuts for that portio
." today president obama again made clear there will be no deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff without the rich paying a higher tax rate. got it? higher rate. in this interview on bloomberg tv, he made it. let's listen. >> the issue right now that's relevant is the acknowledgment that if we're going to raise revenues that are sufficient to balance with the very tough cuts that we've already made and the further reforms and entitlements that i'm prepared to make, that we're going to have to see the rates on the top 2% go up, and we're not going to be able to get a deal without it. >> there you heard it again, top rates have to go up and rates. and some republicans are saying that the gop will ultimately say uncle. conservative columnist byron york, a very smart guy wrote, quote, republicans will cave on the question of raising the tax rate for the highest income americans. the only question is whether they do so before or after the government goes over the so-called fiscal cliff "new york times" column us david brooks describes it this way. republicans will be raising middle class tacks
off the fiscal cliff and congress doesn't take any action to soften the blow, tax rates will go up quite a lot on dividends, from 15% to more than 40% in most circumstances. there are economists who think that will have a big impact on stock markets and they could go down 10%, maybe 20%. i do not think those effects are as strong as some economists believe. i think it is something the market could get over. you're in a long term tax and vanished savings situation. i think you are basically going to be fine unless you're planning on retiring release soon. i do think that is something you have to keep in mind. diversification out of the assets that are most affected by these kinds of taxes is probably never a bad idea. host: john mckinnon is a reporter for "the wall street journal." he is now in the washington bureau. he was a columnist for "the miami herald." what sectors would be hit harder if deductions and loopholes or taken out of the tax code? guest: the stocks that pay a high dividend. these tend to be utility stocks. there are lots of old, established, u.s. industrial firms.
of going over the fiscal cliff or extending the lower tax rate and at the upper one, which would you choose? >> i will do everything i can to avoid putting the american economy and the american people through the fiasco of going over the fiscal cliff. [indiscernible] >> as i told the president a couple of weeks ago, there are a lot of things i have wanted in my life, but almost all of them had a price tag attached to them. if we're going to talk about the debt limit in this, there will be some price tag associated with it. >> are you standing by the dollar-for-dollar on spending cuts? >> i continue to believe that any increase on the debt limit has to be accompanied with spending reductions that meet or exceed it. or exceed it. >> thursday house minority leader nancy pelosi democrats are prepared to vote for middle class tax cuts for 98% of americans. these remarks came after democratic leaders came -- met. >> this doesn't have to be a cliff hanger. the president has his pen poised to sign a middle income tax cut. it has passed the senate and house democrats are prepared to vote for it. we
, you are, i think, correct in the second piece of the fiscal cliff. that is the tax rates that will apply next year. arguably, you don't have to take action this year, you have the whole of next year during which you can reach resolution to that issue. now, the only reason why i think that's an extraordinarily bad idea is i think it would be viewed quite unfavorably by the financial markets. and so you could see a reaction. and it is really bad tax policy to be legislating in the middle of the tax year on the basic structure of the income tax for that year. >> host: we'll go to jeff in tampa, florida, independent caller. >> caller: good morning, how you doing? >> host: good morning, sir. >> caller: yes, i have a question for mr. buckley, and this is more -- it may be a little generic, but something that a couple of my friends and i have talked about and just trying a basic understanding of. instead of having an income tax, has there ever been any discussion about having a national or a federal sales tax to help offset so this way everyone from the rich to the poor, everyon
the fiscal cliff. i disagree. i think he does. i think he wants all the tax rates to go up. you can argue the politics of this. he needs revenue to come in. he wants more spending, not less. wants 1.2 trillion dollars in defense cuts because he wants to cut the military and wants an unlimited credit card in terms being allowed unilaterally to raise the debt limit. he wants all of these things and he knows he will not get blamed for it. the republicans will get blamed for it no matter what happens. the gop will get blamed for it because the mia is protective the president. he has nothing to lose, jon. he is willing to go over the cliff. >> i think what he is say take us over the cliff and vote with the democrats and dare republicans not vote it for 90% of the americans wouldn't be affected by top two tax rates. politician long last realistic how to negotiate in washington he finally understands what you need to do is come and say this is my position. republicans give us your position and we'll negotiate that way as opposed to coming to the table, john boehner i give you 50% of what you wan
: let's go to our next caller in massachusetts. the democrats line. caller: looking at the fiscal cliff, we go back to 2001 with the lowering of the tax rates, meant to create jobs. but in the past 10 or 11 years, we have not had any job creation whatsoever. we keep going back and hearing over and over again that it's going to cost jobs. we do not have jobs to begin with. businesses are out to make money. if consumers do not have money to spend, then you can lower their taxes to 0%. they still cannot spend because they do not have any income. guest: i think that is a great point. it brings up one thing we have not mentioned yet. the payroll tax cut is about to expire. if that expires, every paycheck in the country is going to go down about $1,000 on january 1st. that would hurt consumption. it would hurt the customers of businesses. the president has proposed to extend that. i think that is reasonable. we will see a firm public and keep up their opposition or they give in. we have a sleeper here that cannot be ignored. if we do not extend that, every paycheck in the country is going to
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)